If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Who Pays For Free Software?

Something which has puzzled me for a long time is the question of who pays
for free software. Obviously someone does, otherwise the people who write
it wouldn't be able to pay for their rent and DSL lines.

I'd like nothing more than to be able to write whatever I felt like
writing and give it away for free - somehow magically acquiring a place to
live in the process. But I have to admit that it sounds a lot like
communism and so isn't a practical possibility.

As a small business owner I wonder how I could possibly give away
software, and still send money to everyone involved at the end of the
month. But maybe I'm missing the bigger picture. The following quote
comes from

<quote>
When your company decides to use free software as an alternative to
purchasing proprietary software, you should also plan to contribute some
amount -- either financially, or through resources -- to the development
and maintenance of the free software pool.

It simply makes sense -- good business sense -- to do so. Not as charity,
or moral obligation, but as a pragmatic business strategy. After all, if
your company was somehow the fortunate recipient of golden eggs laid by a
magical goose, wouldn't it make good business sense to keep that valuable
goose healthy?
</quote>

Ok, I think I get it. That model has been well-described by Karl Marx's
famous slogan "From each according to his ability; to each according to
his need."

Are businesses are making a transition to communism, or does this only
apply to software? If I release all of our components now, for free, full
source, can I go pick up a new car, a bag of groceries, and quit paying my
rent? If it's a "pragmatic business strategy" to fulfill my "moral
obligation" to provide free software then isn't it in GM's interest to let
me have a car for free too?

So what's going on in the "free software movement"? Who pays the salaries
of the people producing "free" software? Obviously someone is paying.
Excluding the few dedicated souls who work at McDonalds to pay their rent
and spend long hours at home in selfless devotion to their art, I suspect
that governments, corporations and universities are paying for the
majority of the effort that goes into "free" software. And I guess there
are some people who do so as a hobby. But the majority of people writing
free software are, no doubt, being paid to program.

Are those paying the bills doing so willingly? In some cases, for those
in priveledged research positions, that is probably the case - at least to
some extent. But I know of people who use their paid time at work and
school to pursue their own unauthorized projects, which are then "free"
for other people to use. I wonder how much of the free software is really
stolen - stolen from people who don't realize they're paying for its
development.

In general, corporations - like people - will act in ways which enhance
their short-term interests. So it seems that corporate 'policy' would -
if they know what's going on - be to use free software but without
returning more to the community than their programmers can steal.

Where's the business sense in all of that? Where's the competition and
free-enterprise? It seems odd and inconsistent to think that businesses
would willingly embrace a system so at odds with the philosophy the
expound when it comes to any other economic activity I can think of?

And what does this mean to the programmers? My thought on this - at the
moment - is that it enslaves the programmers involved (except, of course,
for the burger-flipping artisans). In return for whatever hours they can
steal - or even legitimately acquire - to work on free software projects
which amuse them intellectually, they are tied to a corporate/government
system which in turn exercises considerable control over their lives in
numerous ways.

Free software? Bah! I choose free-enterprise and the evolutionary
strength in competition - unless someone knows where I can get a new car
for free.

Re: Who Pays For Free Software?

> Ok, I think I get it. That model has been well-described by Karl Marx's
> famous slogan "From each according to his ability; to each according to
> his need."
>
> Are businesses are making a transition to communism, or does this only
> apply to software? If I release all of our components now, for free,
full
> source, can I go pick up a new car, a bag of groceries, and quit paying
my
> rent? If it's a "pragmatic business strategy" to fulfill my "moral
> obligation" to provide free software then isn't it in GM's interest to
let
> me have a car for free too?

Marx, or one of his followers, will *convince* you that you don't really
need that car after all. Or groceries...
;-)

Re: Who Pays For Free Software?

"Zane Thomas" <zane@mabry.com> wrote in message
news:3b2f7de0.1373509078@news.devx.com...
> "Dave Haskell" <NOhaskellsSPAM@pacbell.net> wrote:
>
> >Miss the OR?
>
> Hahah, no but I hope to make a case for being ontopic in that opposition
> to .net comes often from people who are supporting and pushing the "free
> software" alternatives.

Speaking for myself only as a representative, I think, of that "opposition",
I have never pushed/supported open/free alternatives...why would I waste
anybody's time with that drivel? ...and just to clarify, my opposition is
not to .Net, in general, but specifically for, and limited to, the VB.Net
"upgrade"/migration story. <...just in case I had not managed to make that
crystal clear previously.>

Re: Who Pays For Free Software?

"Mark Burns" <mark@iolofpa.com> wrote:
>Speaking for myself only as a representative, I think, of that "opposition",
>I have never pushed/supported open/free alternatives...

Hey, I didn't mention any names. :-) The link, a couple thread back, to
the way Borland is trying to exploit the "free software" space as a way to
attract customers reminded me of something I've been thinking about, hence
the post. It wasn't directed at anyone in particular - with the possible
exception of you know who. Don't mind me - just a little red-baiting.

>my opposition not to .Net, in general, but specifically for, and limited
>to, the VB.Net "upgrade"/migration story. <...just in case I had not
>managed to make that crystal clear previously.>

Yes, I understand that that is the position of many people here. But I
wonder how much MS can/will do to change that. And I wonder whether this
will ultimately work out better than changing VB more slowly over a number
of versions. And I also realize that there are people here who will say
that there is no reason to change VB now, or ever. Accpeting as a premise
that .net is a Good Thing I think that at least some changes to VB were
required.

If there's a message that MS can get and respond to with action, that
message has already been sent and the action is already taking place. If
not, then it's over, VB has change permanently - for better or worse.

The remaining issue, regardless of that, is what to do now. Is .net a
good way to move forward? I think so. It seems to be a very productive
environment which solves a number of technical, marketting, and legal
problems. Whether the vast majority of current VB users moves forward
with .net remains to be seen - although I suspect that eventually most
will.

Given that it seems that the best thing to do now is to make up ones mind
and start moving in whatever direction seems best. The endless arguing
about bools, what MS should have done, what MS could have done, all - by
now - seem to me to be irrelevant and a waste of time. And, if the
broader community of VB programmers is influenced in such a way that .net
fails - if there really is enough clout there - then I have to ask what
will have been accomplished. I think .net is an important fork in the
road for MS, and that if .net doesn't succeed then MS will become a
substaintially different - and less important - company than it has been
over the past decade or so. Some people - the MS haters - would be happy
with that. I would not.

Re: Who Pays For Free Software?

On Wed, 31 Jan 2001 18:34:02 -0500, "Mark Burns" <mark@iolofpa.com>
wrote:
>
>"Zane Thomas" <zane@mabry.com> wrote in message
>news:3b359199.1378558531@news.devx.com...
>Oh? who? I have not heard that idea seriously promoted. Language
>Stability<TM Dan Barclay <g>> and petrification are not one and the same
>thing. As you know full well, had they wanted to, there was nothing, save
>effort, stopping them from making this Visual ASIC thing fully able to run,
>almost unmodified, existing VB6 source code - certain core architectural
>things like DF, notably excepted.

Bingo. Of course, Zane knows this already.
>> Accpeting as a premise
>> that .net is a Good Thing I think that at least some changes to VB were
>> required.
>
>...Changes <> Ruination. <said while being _real_ careful not to get
>dyslexic on that word...>

LOL
>> If there's a message that MS can get and respond to with action, that
>> message has already been sent and the action is already taking place.
>
>...I see no evidence of that from this perspective...
>
>> If not, then it's over, VB has change permanently - for better or worse.
>
>...and I'm not yet ready to concede that <while fully acknowledging the
>latness of the hour>. I also don't forget the New/Classic Coke reversal, so
>even post release, all hope may not be lost, if the message from the
>marketplace is equally deafening to MS.

Most of the marketplace doesn't even understand what's happened yet.
Give it a few months and see if a few more folks don't wake up.
>
>> The remaining issue, regardless of that, is what to do now. Is .net a
>> good way to move forward? I think so. It seems to be a very productive
>> environment which solves a number of technical, marketting, and legal
>> problems. Whether the vast majority of current VB users moves forward
>> with .net remains to be seen - although I suspect that eventually most
>> will.
>
>All of that is true, but I guess it is the thought that MS' legal relief
>coming at the expense of our existing codebases is really them asking alot
>for me to want to swallow willingly.

The smart move for MS would have been to make an *easy* way for us to
experiment with our apps in .net while not going nuts trying to keep
up with our Windows versions. So far they haven't taken advantage of
that opportunity. Doesn't look much like they will. Secondly, they
are hard at work solidifying a view among many of us that they don't
value our code assets.

Continued discussion of these issues *may* wake them up, or possibly
uncover some viable option that hasn't been considered yet. (VB5/6 IL
converter to .netIL converter? Patch under the existing compiler?
Some compiler whiz wakes up and sez "oh, yea, I can make those changes
by Monday")

Re: Who Pays For Free Software?

"Zane Thomas" <zane@mabry.com> wrote in message
news:3b359199.1378558531@news.devx.com...
>
> >my opposition not to .Net, in general, but specifically for, and limited
> >to, the VB.Net "upgrade"/migration story. <...just in case I had not
> >managed to make that crystal clear previously.>
>
> Yes, I understand that that is the position of many people here. But I
> wonder how much MS can/will do to change that.

Yep...that one is the question of the hour, no doubt.
Can? They _can_ do plenty...if they WANT to. <...but how do we make tham
want to...?>
Will? Well....that, right there is the real question, I suppose.
I'd love it if somebody with Beta2 exposure _could_/would say anything as to
whether those "changes" we've been hearing about address, at all, any of the
".NOT"-list issues that have been bandied about...so completely. I'm not
taking any wagers on that score, however...<g>
> And I wonder whether this will ultimately work out better than changing
VB
> more slowly over a number of versions.

Hmm...work out better for _who_, precisely?
> And I also realize that there are people here who will say
> that there is no reason to change VB now, or ever.

Oh? who? I have not heard that idea seriously promoted. Language
Stability<TM Dan Barclay <g>> and petrification are not one and the same
thing. As you know full well, had they wanted to, there was nothing, save
effort, stopping them from making this Visual ASIC thing fully able to run,
almost unmodified, existing VB6 source code - certain core architectural
things like DF, notably excepted.
> Accpeting as a premise
> that .net is a Good Thing I think that at least some changes to VB were
> required.

....Changes <> Ruination. <said while being _real_ careful not to get
dyslexic on that word...>
> If there's a message that MS can get and respond to with action, that
> message has already been sent and the action is already taking place.

....I see no evidence of that from this perspective...
> If not, then it's over, VB has change permanently - for better or worse.

....and I'm not yet ready to concede that <while fully acknowledging the
latness of the hour>. I also don't forget the New/Classic Coke reversal, so
even post release, all hope may not be lost, if the message from the
marketplace is equally deafening to MS.
> The remaining issue, regardless of that, is what to do now. Is .net a
> good way to move forward? I think so. It seems to be a very productive
> environment which solves a number of technical, marketting, and legal
> problems. Whether the vast majority of current VB users moves forward
> with .net remains to be seen - although I suspect that eventually most
> will.

All of that is true, but I guess it is the thought that MS' legal relief
coming at the expense of our existing codebases is really them asking alot
for me to want to swallow willingly.
> Given that it seems that the best thing to do now is to make up ones mind
> and start moving in whatever direction seems best. The endless arguing
> about bools, what MS should have done, what MS could have done, all - by
> now - seem to me to be irrelevant and a waste of time. And, if the
> broader community of VB programmers is influenced in such a way that .net
> fails - if there really is enough clout there - then I have to ask what
> will have been accomplished. I think .net is an important fork in the
> road for MS, and that if .net doesn't succeed then MS will become a
> substaintially different - and less important - company than it has been
> over the past decade or so. Some people - the MS haters - would be happy
> with that. I would not.
>
>
>
>
> ---
> Ice Z - Straight Outta Redmond

Re: Who Pays For Free Software?

Sure, and I could continue writing VBX components if I wanted to. But
there's no future in it. At some point a company has to move on - we may
disagree on there that point is, and how wide it is.

>> And I wonder whether this will ultimately work out better than changing
>> VB more slowly over a number of versions.
>
>Hmm...work out better for _who_, precisely?

For people who are trying to move huge code bases forward - although I
have serious doubts about how many such people really exist.
>> And I also realize that there are people here who will say
>> that there is no reason to change VB now, or ever.
>
>Oh? who? I have not heard that idea seriously promoted. Language
>Stability<TM Dan Barclay <g>> and petrification are not one and the same
>thing.

Well then we're just talking a matter of degree, a subjective judgement.
Dan thinks VB went too far this time, others might think it didn't go far
enough.

>As you know full well, had they wanted to, there was nothing, save
>effort, stopping them from making this Visual ASIC thing fully able to run,
>almost unmodified, existing VB6 source code ...

Yes, but even MS has limited resources. I'd rather seeing them put their
time into more base classes.

>> If there's a message that MS can get and respond to with action, that
>> message has already been sent and the action is already taking place.
>
>...I see no evidence of that from this perspective...

I see no evidence of change either - that's probably the end of that issue
then.
>... if the message from the
>marketplace is equally deafening to MS.

The VB-related messages aren't going to be the only ones. If VBers stay
away in droves - something I really doubt will happen - then there's
always c# and a number of other languages. Given the advantages the .net
platform has I don't think VB is _required_ to make it a success.
>All of that is true, but I guess it is the thought that MS' legal relief
>coming at the expense of our existing codebases is really them asking alot
>for me to want to swallow willingly.

It's not just the legal issue ... .net solves a whole bunch of problems at
once. And, avoiding a destructive breakup is _very_ important to MS.

Re: Who Pays For Free Software?

"Zane Thomas" <zane@mabry.com> wrote in message
news:3b36a4a4.1383433671@news.devx.com...
> "Mark Burns" <mark@iolofpa.com> wrote:
>
> >Can? They _can_ do plenty...if they WANT to.
>
> Sure, and I could continue writing VBX components if I wanted to. But
> there's no future in it. At some point a company has to move on - we may
> disagree on there that point is, and how wide it is.

Well... I guess there's no surprise there now, is there?
Ok, Zane. Let us put this question to a bit more definitive exam, then.
YOU are Bill Gates. Your customers include tons of different people from
mega-multi-national corporations with fat walets, to leetle teensy folks
like us. Now, the Big multi-nationals _do_ make up a hefty part of your
revenue stream, but where is the real, actual leading edge folks - the ones
who help determine, for the most part, which direction the market is most
likely to head off in next? Is it those big guys (who tend to be somewhat
more conservative and less "bleeding-edge" overall <sweeping
overgeneralization alert!>) or is it the littler guys <ignoring, for the
moment that vast middle ground>? Historically, the Dev Tools group's market
has been more-or-less the leading indicator of where the remaining market
will go - future technologies-wise, and you've done great, your dev tools
dominate the (healthy) competition, but you see storm clouds on that
horizon.
So, you're deciding what direction to go/lead in the future. Who do you talk
to...and why? what do you ask them?...and when you do, what do they tell
you - especially concerning future whiz-bang stuff -vs- continuity and
protection of their existing investments and systems?
Which, to them, is more important...and breaking that answer down by
customer size, who is more concerned about it, the bigger guys, or the
smaller ones?
> >> And I wonder whether this will ultimately work out better than
changing
> >> VB more slowly over a number of versions.
> >
> >Hmm...work out better for _who_, precisely?
>
> For people who are trying to move huge code bases forward - although I
> have serious doubts about how many such people really exist.

Lucky you're not one of them with a VB/COM-designed mission-critical system,
eh? Be very careful here of your omissions-via-perspective. Just because you
can't see/hear the rest of the iceberg beneath the surface does not mean it
isn't there.
> >> And I also realize that there are people here who will say
> >> that there is no reason to change VB now, or ever.
> >
> >Oh? who? I have not heard that idea seriously promoted. Language
> >Stability<TM Dan Barclay <g>> and petrification are not one and the same
> >thing.
>
> Well then we're just talking a matter of degree, a subjective judgement.
> Dan thinks VB went too far this time, others might think it didn't go far
> enough.

Well, they could well have gone further had they not attempted to foist off
this new Fredenstein monster is our "Next Generation" VB...Had they admitted
that VB was dead - as they shipped the next, incremental update (VB6.5 for
Ex.) and that this new Visual ASIC thingie in the .Net platform was THE
FUTURE DIRECTION..., well, then, they could have "cleaned it up" even more,
and we'd all have had several years to make a decision about what to do, and
not be _really uncomfortable_ about what to do with those relatively new
projects we're just now laying the keels for.
> >As you know full well, had they wanted to, there was nothing, save
> >effort, stopping them from making this Visual ASIC thing fully able to
run,
> >almost unmodified, existing VB6 source code ...
>
> Yes, but even MS has limited resources. I'd rather seeing them put their
> time into more base classes.

Heh... of course you would. I would rather see some continuity in existing
investments paid more attention to. I'd also rather see a DF solution - even
a kludgy one (I did try to outline one).
> >> If there's a message that MS can get and respond to with action, that
> >> message has already been sent and the action is already taking place.
> >
> >...I see no evidence of that from this perspective...
>
> I see no evidence of change either - that's probably the end of that issue
> then.

<snarl...(not at you, Zane)>
> >... if the message from the
> >marketplace is equally deafening to MS.
>
> The VB-related messages aren't going to be the only ones. If VBers stay
> away in droves - something I really doubt will happen - then there's
> always c# and a number of other languages. Given the advantages the .net
> platform has I don't think VB is _required_ to make it a success.

....but if the VB6 upgrade story were alot better, it'd sure help .Net
adoption be alot _faster_ and bigger, wouldn't it? <no brainer>
> >All of that is true, but I guess it is the thought that MS' legal relief
> >coming at the expense of our existing codebases is really them asking
alot
> >for me to want to swallow willingly.
>
> It's not just the legal issue ... .net solves a whole bunch of problems at
> once. And, avoiding a destructive breakup is _very_ important to MS.

Re: Who Pays For Free Software?

Hi Zane --
> >Speaking for myself only as a representative, I think, of that "opposition",
> >I have never pushed/supported open/free alternatives...
>
> Hey, I didn't mention any names. :-) The link, a couple thread back, to
> the way Borland is trying to exploit the "free software" space as a way to
> attract customers reminded me of something I've been thinking about, hence
> the post. It wasn't directed at anyone in particular - with the possible
> exception of you know who. Don't mind me - just a little red-baiting.

Re: Who Pays For Free Software?

I don't know what this has to do with VB.NET, but I'll play "devil's advocate"
with you.

zane@mabry.com (Zane Thomas) wrote:
<The following quote
>comes from
>
>http://www.zdnetasia.com/news/anchor...48534-1,00.htm
>
>
><quote>
>When your company decides to use free software as an alternative to
>purchasing proprietary software, you should also plan to contribute some
>amount -- either financially, or through resources -- to the development
>and maintenance of the free software pool.
>
>It simply makes sense -- good business sense -- to do so. Not as charity,
>or moral obligation, but as a pragmatic business strategy. After all, if
>your company was somehow the fortunate recipient of golden eggs laid by
a
>magical goose, wouldn't it make good business sense to keep that valuable
>goose healthy?
></quote>
>

I don't think the author is advocating communism or socialism or anything
like that. I interpret the statement as saying that, from a pure cost/benefit
standpoint, it may benefit the company to support open source software.

Here are a couple of examples:

At the company that I'm working for, we make use of a few open source software
tools and libraries. From time to time, we discover a bug in the software
that affects our use of it. Because we have access to the source code, we
can usually diagnose and fix the problem within a reasonable amount of time.
As a general rule, any bugs that we fix we "submit" towards the next version
of the software. We do this not to be nice, but so that our changes can
be integrated and incorporated with the next version. When we get the next
version of the software, our fix is already there so we don't have to retrofit
it every time there is a new release. Of course, this has the nice side
effect of benefitting the community-at-large, but this isn't our primary
concern. Our main concern is that we have a software tool that meets our
needs.

In addition to bug fixes, ocassionaly there are minor enhancements that we
add to the software in order meet our individual needs. Again, we submit
these changes to the community-at-large so that they can be integrated into
future versions and we don't have to continously add them to each new version
ourselves.

You can see that we are acting totally in our self-interest, and yet we are
advancing the state of open source software.

Other companies sell products and services that rely on open source software.
Because of this reliance, it may be in their best financial interest to
devote resources toward developing open source software. They could use
those resources to add features which benefit their specific product. For
instance, if their product was a web server than ran under Linux, they might
want to make fixes and enhancements that would make the platform more stable,
ir maybe add some socket API's to make their development easier. If they
made their money selling consulting services, they might become involved
to enhance their credibility as a consultant. All of these things have a
tangible financial benefit to the company. None of them rely on altruism
or socialist motives.

>So what's going on in the "free software movement"? Who pays the salaries
>of the people producing "free" software? Obviously someone is paying.

In addition to companies which contribute for their own personal gain (see
above), I would guess that a lot of the contributors come from academia.
An open source operating system like Linux makes a great, hands-on lab for
a professor and a bunch of grad students. Plus, academics has a different
mentality than the corporate world. Corporations are concerned with trade
secrets, patents, and copyrights, whereas the academic mentality centers
around the free flow of information for the good of science and progress.
Techniques and algorithms that would be considered prizes possessions by
CEO's are often published in scientific and technical journals without a
second thought. I'm not trying to make a value judgment here (in truth,
I like the idea of reaping the tangible benefits of my mental labors, but
that's just me). I'm just contrasting how differently the two worlds operate.
The open source idea kind of fits into that academic line of reasoning.

As far as corporate workers "stealing time" from their employers goes, I
can't comment on that. Personally, I haven't seen or heard of that going
on, but that doesn't mean it doesn't happen. If it does happen, I agree
with you that it's wrong and the companies should take action.

On the other hand, if somebody wanted to dedicate their own time to further
the "cause" of open source, that's their choice. It's not my choice, but
this is a free country after all. If people want to work for nothing, that's
their business.
>And what does this mean to the programmers? My thought on this - at the
>moment - is that it enslaves the programmers involved (except, of course,
>for the burger-flipping artisans). In return for whatever hours they can
>steal - or even legitimately acquire - to work on free software projects
>which amuse them intellectually, they are tied to a corporate/government
>system which in turn exercises considerable control over their lives in
>numerous ways.
>

Well enslaving isn't the term I would use. If somebody makes the conscious
choice to perform a valuable service without renumeration, that's their right.
I've always said that in the U.S.A. one of our most precious rights is the
right to be stupid.

Re: Who Pays For Free Software?

Woohoo!!! Can I have a new car now?
>... where [are] the real, actual leading edge folks? ...
>Is it those big guys ( ... conservative ... ) or is it
>the littler guys ...?

I didn't miss that you pointed out your sweeping generalization, but I'm
not sure I can ignore it. Based on a very few emails from large corporate
types, and what I see here from 'the littler guys', it appears that things
aren't so clear. There are some non-conservative corporate types, and
some very conservative others. Corporations themselves will, my turn to
generalize, put a damper on the direction their sometimes less
conservative employees push ... but if the tide swings in the direction of
..net many large corporations will go with it. Took badly jumble a
metaphor or two.
>So, you're deciding what direction to go/lead in the future. Who do you talk
>to...and why? what do you ask them?

But we don't know what research, if any, MS did on this topic. From what
I've seen in the past they probably gave a lot of thought to the topic ...
but they arrived at a different conclusion than you and others have. I
really really wish we had access to the 'facts' and reasoning which led to
vb.net as we know it, but we don't so there's nothing to argue with there.
>> For people who are trying to move huge code bases forward - although I
>> have serious doubts about how many such people really exist.
>
>Lucky you're not one of them with a VB/COM-designed mission-critical system,
>eh?

Again we come back to the seemingly urgent implict need to port. Why
should such a system be ported in a hurry, or even in one chunk? Interop
would allow moving a bit at a time to acquire new functionality, if
required.

>Be very careful here of your omissions-via-perspective.

I think that's good advice for everyone invovled. I've thought about what
my perspective is, written about it, and tried to get others to do the
same. I know that I don't understand everyone's perspective entirely
well. And I'm not sure that all the people here even understand their own
perspective very well.
>Well, they could well have gone further had they not attempted to foist off
>this new Fredenstein monster is our "Next Generation" VB...Had they admitted
>that VB was dead - as they shipped the next, incremental update (VB6.5 for
>Ex.)

I've asked before, and don't recall having gotten a satisfactory answer,
maybe you can tell me what it is in VB6 that so demands a VB6.5?

>... we'd all have had several years to make a decision about what to do

I think you do have at least a couple of years to decide. This is the
first time I've seen an MS language in wide-distribution so long before
release.
>and
>not be _really uncomfortable_ about what to do with those relatively new
>projects we're just now laying the keels for.

If you _must_ write VB6 code now at least you know where the icebergs are
ahead.
>I'd also rather see a DF solution ...

I don't see that the DF problems are so significant that they demand a
solution, and especially not a kludgy one.
>...but if the VB6 upgrade story were alot better, it'd sure help .Net
>adoption be alot _faster_ and bigger, wouldn't it? <no brainer>

I can't argue with a no brainer. :-) Yeah, it would be nice if there was
some way to directly translate vb pcode to IL. But due to the huge change
from COM to the .net object model I don't think it could be done. (Java's
a different story, obviously)

There are some changes I'd like to see in the VB6 converter program.
First, I'd get rid of the VB6 compatability class thing. The first time I
had a question about how to code something in vb.net I wrote a vb6 program
and converted it. No help at all! Just writing the equivalent code, even
as functions in the generated code, would have been a much better learning
tool. Second, and I'm sure they're working on this, I'd have fewer TODOs
in the generated code.

Re: Who Pays For Free Software?

"David Kroll" <dgkroll@hotmail.comNOSPAM> wrote:
>I don't know what this has to do with VB.NET, but I'll play "devil's advocate"
>with you.

Great someone had to do it, and you did a good job of it.
>I don't think the author is advocating communism or socialism or anything
>like that. I interpret the statement as saying that, from a pure cost/benefit
>standpoint, it may benefit the company to support open source software.

I think that overlooks what appears to me to be an obvious fact, it's
always better for a corporation to let someone else maintain the source.

You do make a good point about bug-fixes and minor enhancements. But how
does soemthing like vs.net get created in such a system?
>Other companies sell products and services that rely on open source software.
> Because of this reliance, it may be in their best financial interest to
>devote resources toward developing open source software. They could use
>those resources to add features which benefit their specific product.

However if a corporation is in a position where it's competing with other
corporations which would similarly benefit from added features, then it
seems that it would be in their interest to _not_ release those new
features for public use.
>In addition to companies which contribute for their own personal gain (see
>above), I would guess that a lot of the contributors come from academia.

There's no doubt about that. I've have many times grabbed ideas and
algorithms which were the result of academic research - however I've never
gotten a commercial quality product. Hmm, there are significant grey
areas when it comes to academia and their sometimes incestuous
relationships with business, either indirectly or directly through
companies started by - or in participation with - academics. Personally I
think that if someone wants to lead an academic life - which certainly has
its attractions - that it is unethecial to then take what was funded by
the public and turn it to private profit.
>Corporations are concerned with trade
>secrets, patents, and copyrights, whereas the academic mentality centers
>around the free flow of information for the good of science and progress.

In an ideal world - but how many commercial software ventures have been
spun out of academia? Many.
> Techniques and algorithms that would be considered prizes possessions by
>CEO's are often published in scientific and technical journals without a
>second thought.

And many corporations also publish the results of research they have
invested substantial amounts of money in.
>>And what does this mean to the programmers? My thought on this - at the
>>moment - is that it enslaves the programmers involved (except, of course,
>>for the burger-flipping artisans). In return for whatever hours they can
>>steal - or even legitimately acquire - to work on free software projects
>>which amuse them intellectually, they are tied to a corporate/government
>>system which in turn exercises considerable control over their lives in
>>numerous ways.
>>
>
>Well enslaving isn't the term I would use. If somebody makes the conscious
>choice to perform a valuable service without renumeration, that's their right.

Or to provide a valueless service with runumeration. But that wasn't my
point. What I was trying to get at is that idea that there are likely
many very good and creative programmers out there who don't follow their
dreams, instead devoting themselves to corporate goals - grabbing only
those bits of freedom they can from the 'free software' idea. If they
truely have better ideas - as many of them do - then the way to bring them
to fruition is by entering the competition themselves instead of remaining
in their comfortable corporate (or academic) cribs.
> I've always said that in the U.S.A. one of our most precious rights is the
>right to be stupid.

Re: Who Pays For Free Software?

Sure! As Bill Gates, you can afford it, I assume...<g>
> >... where [are] the real, actual leading edge folks? ...
>
> >Is it those big guys ( ... conservative ... ) or is it
> >the littler guys ...?
>
> I didn't miss that you pointed out your sweeping generalization, but I'm
> not sure I can ignore it. Based on a very few emails from large corporate
> types, and what I see here from 'the littler guys', it appears that things
> aren't so clear. There are some non-conservative corporate types, and
> some very conservative others. Corporations themselves will, my turn to
> generalize, put a damper on the direction their sometimes less
> conservative employees push ... but if the tide swings in the direction of
> .net many large corporations will go with it. Took badly jumble a
> metaphor or two.

Yeah...as I posted it (under the time pressure of my wife's fourth call to
dinner...backed up against having somewhere to go afterwards) I realized
that I wasn't happy with what/how I wrote it, and reading your response I
realize the size mataphor was unnecessary, poorly done, and/or wrong on my
part. You hit upon the one key part of what I was digging at though with
your counter-overgeneralization<g> about the
corporate-mentality/-organizational damper-effect on those within the
comporations who attempt to drive new/innovative technology adoption. ...And
that is the point I was really trying to get at with my size angle, and that
this is less likely (nature of the beast-wise) to occur in smaller
organizations. The overgeneralized <again> result is that the larger the
organization, the slower they tend to be in adopting new
technologies/methodologies, and vice-versa.
The real outcome of that - whether ther above overgeneralization holds true
or not<g> - is that there are two groups of technology adopters -
fast-adopters, and slow(er) adopters <including those ranging all the way
down to non-adopters>.
Narrowing the fast-adopters' behavior down to the VB6->VB.Net question at
hand, we can guess/generalize a few things: More of the ~40% who DO use
classes/Objects/COM/DCOM/COM+/etc.,. advanced designs with VB6 will be found
here than in those slow<er> technology-adopting companies. <should be a
no-brainer here, agreed?>
Consequently, it is these fast-adopters who will now have more, larger
VB5-6/COM generation codebase investments than the slower-adopters <YMMV, of
course>. It is these leading/bleeding-edge innovator organizations, then who
are <more likely to be> the ones who do/don't make the jump to that
next-generation technology, and in this case, they are also the ones with
the most to lose by this poor upgrade story.
So, what happens when these guys are ...slower on the uptake of .Net because
of their current investments in the previous-generation VB/COM technology? I
think the ripple effects of that would be to discourage the slower adopters
even more because those slower-adopter folks often are the ones who wait and
read the magazines articles written by those "bleeding edge" fast-adopters
and see what the "bleeding-edgers" have already done and proven to work/not
work - months, at least, after the "bleeding-edgers" have done what they've
done. The overall effect, then on .Net adoption could be alot more dramatic
in terms of slowing the adoption of the platform than the numbers might
otherwise indicate. I'm talking here more of the psychology of the
marketplace, and how these newer technologies enter it.
> >So, you're deciding what direction to go/lead in the future. Who do you
talk
> >to...and why? what do you ask them?
>
> But we don't know what research, if any, MS did on this topic. From what
> I've seen in the past they probably gave a lot of thought to the topic ...
> but they arrived at a different conclusion than you and others have. I
> really really wish we had access to the 'facts' and reasoning which led to
> vb.net as we know it, but we don't so there's nothing to argue with there.

<sigh> yeah...ain't ignorance bliss?<g>
> >> For people who are trying to move huge code bases forward - although I
> >> have serious doubts about how many such people really exist.
> >
> >Lucky you're not one of them with a VB/COM-designed mission-critical
system,
> >eh?
>
> Again we come back to the seemingly urgent implict need to port. Why
> should such a system be ported in a hurry, or even in one chunk? Interop
> would allow moving a bit at a time to acquire new functionality, if
> required.

Let's just say that I have learned - the hard way - never to take those
promises of interop/compatibility to be worth more than the dollar bills
they were<n't> printed on. To say the least, I'm suspicious. To be more
precise, I'm **** cynical about that working ITRW as well as advertised, and
I'm supposed to be satisfied with that as my "compatibility bridge" between
VB/COM and .Net? Somebody has a whole lot to prove to me about how well that
works ITRW before I will buy into that as a viable, _reliable_ path forward,
and proving that to my satisfaction just can't happen with a beta product
IMO <...and I'm an extreme optomist, otherwise!<g>>
> >Be very careful here of your omissions-via-perspective.
>
> I think that's good advice for everyone invovled. I've thought about what
> my perspective is, written about it, and tried to get others to do the
> same. I know that I don't understand everyone's perspective entirely
> well. And I'm not sure that all the people here even understand their own
> perspective very well.

Well...I am trying...but so far at least, I found something we both agree
on!<g>
> >Well, they could well have gone further had they not attempted to foist
off
> >this new Fredenstein monster is our "Next Generation" VB...Had they
admitted
> >that VB was dead - as they shipped the next, incremental update (VB6.5
for
> >Ex.)
>
> I've asked before, and don't recall having gotten a satisfactory answer,
> maybe you can tell me what it is in VB6 that so demands a VB6.5?

In COM we had an inviolable interface contract as the premise the system was
founded on, right? Well, in VB we had a presumption of the premise that what
we did now was not going to be totally trashed by what MS did tomorrow, and
if we did not have that assumption, then we'd have been utter asses for ever
investing our time and energy into developing any code whatsoever in that
environment/with that toolset. That presumption pretty much paid off for us
all from VB1 thru VB6 <certain obvious exceptions aside>. Now, however, they
have hung us out to dry with that very presumption, and if it stays this
way, guess what, we _were_ asses for putting our proverbial eggs in this
basket.
How do you think those "bleeding-edgers" <from above> will react to the
sudden feeling wearing of egg on their faces? gladly? I hardly think so.
This, as I've said earlier, will give them reason to pause, and ask
themselves "is this the way we want go go from here on? Can we trust MS not
to do this to us again?" The very fact that MS's actions in this regard
would give _anybody_ <in their current customer base> pause enough to ask
those questions, to any degree, is _not_ a good indiciator that they <MS>
have made the right decisions here.

That, alone, in terms of their customers' goodwill and continued faith in
them <anotherwords, to remove those questions from customers' minds _at
all_> is reason to do the VB6.5 version along the lines I indicated in
earlier threads.
> >... we'd all have had several years to make a decision about what to do
>
> I think you do have at least a couple of years to decide. This is the
> first time I've seen an MS language in wide-distribution so long before
> release.

How long are the lives of the mission-critical VB6/COM business systems that
the "bleeding-edgers" have created with the current-generation tools? I bet
they sure hoped that the answer was "longer than 2 years." ...and they're
gonna be pissed if that's all it turns out to be.
....and will YOU <you're Bill Gates here, remember?> ABSOLUTELY GUARANTEE -
in $$ - that those future 64-bit platforms that will rule the server side in
the not-too-distant future, won't have _any_ problems or issues running the
VB5-6 COM/DCOM/COM+ components that our existing mission-critical apps
currently depend on? That's the kind of guarantee of future stability that
those "bleeding-edgers" who wrote those kinds of enterprise systems are
going to be looking for, and if they can't get it <and they won't, will they
Bill?> they're going to have to act to develop means of taking proper
advantage of the new 64-bit server-side technology <due to competitive
pressures & all> which means they're soon porting/re-codeing *ASAP* those
same mission-critical systems <pesumably in .Net>.
> >and
> >not be _really uncomfortable_ about what to do with those relatively new
> >projects we're just now laying the keels for.
>
> If you _must_ write VB6 code now at least you know where the icebergs are
> ahead.
>
> >I'd also rather see a DF solution ...
>
> I don't see that the DF problems are so significant that they demand a
> solution, and especially not a kludgy one.

Well, if there's a 6.5 scenario and we have 5+ years to move those
mission-critical systems to .Net, then I suppose I can agree with you
<providing there's not a reall nasty problem lurking down there in COM
interop-ville, as my...programmers' intuition<?>...tells me there is (please
don't ask me to explain that, I can't)>.

If OTOH, we don't get a 6.5, and all those VB5-6/COM programmers who
don't/won't get sufficient training beyond spotty reading of the help
files/MSDN are pushed too soon into the .Net platform unawares...that
oft-mentioned 85% project failure rate will climb sharply higher. ...what do
you think that would do for .Net's reputation and adoption rate <let alone
of VB.Net>?
> >...but if the VB6 upgrade story were alot better, it'd sure help .Net
> >adoption be alot _faster_ and bigger, wouldn't it? <no brainer>
>
> I can't argue with a no brainer. :-) Yeah, it would be nice if there was
> some way to directly translate vb pcode to IL. But due to the huge change
> from COM to the .net object model I don't think it could be done. (Java's
> a different story, obviously)
>
> There are some changes I'd like to see in the VB6 converter program.
> First, I'd get rid of the VB6 compatability class thing. The first time I
> had a question about how to code something in vb.net I wrote a vb6 program
> and converted it. No help at all! Just writing the equivalent code, even
> as functions in the generated code, would have been a much better learning
> tool. Second, and I'm sure they're working on this, I'd have fewer TODOs
> in the generated code.

....and what TODOs there are left at the end had BETTER have links embedded
in the TODO text pointing directly to relevant examples in the help docs on
handling that particular nasty critter, or to directly launch wizards to
help generate the code to do what is needed.